[simple simon]

If the 45th vice president and self proclaimed "former next President of the United States", Al Gore, is to be believed, humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.


Gore makes a convincing argument in this Academy award-winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, many of the worlds leading scientists studies agree that man is influencing the climate and is doing so at an increasing rate.


Gore is driven by the need to educate the public about the climate crisis; indeed he has donated 100 percent of the profits from his book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further increase awareness about global warming.


Public opinion on climate change is changing rapidly, not only because of the efforts of Gore and those like him, but by the evidence of the perceived increase severe weather events on the ground, also playing a major role.
The FIA's plans to put F1 at the fore front of green technologies were announced at a meeting of the World Motorsport council on the 8th of December 2006.


The new proposals are to be brought into the sports regulations in stages.
Starting in 2009 it is planned cars would feature energy recovery and re-use from braking systems.


From 2010 onwards a proportion of waste heat as well as a proportion of waste energy from exhaust gases are be recovered and used to propel the car.


2011 would see rules relating to high efficiency turbocharging and the introduction of fuel (energy) flow limits which would effectively reduce engine speeds so an engine downsize is proposed to keep the cars at 15000+ rpm.

Motorsport.com: News channel

[simple simon]

ok, this reply has little to do with the thread, but why is anyone trying to appease Al Gore and his global warming bunk while he flies around in his jet

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by simple simon

If the 45th vice president and self proclaimed "former next President of the United States", Al Gore, is to be believed, humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.


Gore makes a convincing argument in this Academy award-winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, many of the worlds leading scientists studies agree that man is influencing the climate and is doing so at an increasing rate.


Gore is driven by the need to educate the public about the climate crisis; indeed he has donated 100 percent of the profits from his book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further increase awareness about global warming.


Public opinion on climate change is changing rapidly, not only because of the efforts of Gore and those like him, but by the evidence of the perceived increase severe weather events on the ground, also playing a major role.
The FIA's plans to put F1 at the fore front of green technologies were announced at a meeting of the World Motorsport council on the 8th of December 2006.


The new proposals are to be brought into the sports regulations in stages.
Starting in 2009 it is planned cars would feature energy recovery and re-use from braking systems.


From 2010 onwards a proportion of waste heat as well as a proportion of waste energy from exhaust gases are be recovered and used to propel the car.


2011 would see rules relating to high efficiency turbocharging and the introduction of fuel (energy) flow limits which would effectively reduce engine speeds so an engine downsize is proposed to keep the cars at 15000+ rpm.

Motorsport.com: News channel

Do we really want to go here, Simon? But since we have...

For every argument for the Global Warming myth there is a converse, substantiated argument that man is NOT influencing the earth's climate but only the environment. Many, as do I, believe that this is just a ruse being used by the UN to gain even more control over the world's wealthier, more industrialized nations.

I took the above article under advisement. Now here is the other side of the story:
The Myth Of Global Warming

[Phils20]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Do we really want to go here, Simon? But since we have...

For every argument for the Global Warming myth there is a converse, substantiated argument that man is NOT influencing the earth's climate but only the environment. Many, as do I, believe that this is just a ruse being used by the UN to gain even more control over the world's wealthier, more industrialized nations.

I took the above article under advisement. Now here is the other side of the story:
The Myth Of Global Warming

Thanks for that link, Bob. I have saved that one, and sometime after I have had less cold beverages, I plan on checking that out! It seems the only side that gets any coverage is the doom and gloom side, that tells us we are bringing about our own doom.

[Racer Duck]

Not wanting to stifle the debate, let me say that scientific evidence is not, nor was it ever, a matter for "agreement" by a consortium of scientists, i.e., it's not something that's voted on. Either the theory is proven by the data or it isn't .. there is only one right answer and it can be proven time and again.

The Global Warming theory and the Big Bang Theory are great fodder for science fiction writers; but when put to true scientific rigors, they fail miserably because the basis for the theories are found lacking as well as certain facts used to support the theories contradict established physical laws within the universe.

As for Mr. Gore's film, just ask yourself why a Federal Judge in England (sorry, I don't have the proper title) has issued an edict that when Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is publicly presented that it must be preceded by a statement which says there are a minimum of 9 specific falsehoods presented as truths in the film and the 9 are listed? Now, it seems this Judge has certainly set himself up as a target and a laughingstock, provided anyone could prove any of the 9 "truths" to be true.


That said, I want to address some of the proposals:

• Starting in 2009 it is planned cars would feature energy recovery and re-use from braking systems.
  • A noble effort, however, I believe this will further escalate the cost of the cars. There's only a couple ways achieve this as far as I know. One is to attach motor/generators to each wheel and to store the energy generated under braking in a battery while the other method is to utilize a spring type energy recovery system, again attached to the wheels, and to store the energy in the spring. Either method will add considerably to the unsprung weight of the vehicle thus introducing more instability into the handling of the car.
  • To what benefit would be this proposal, other than political?
• From 2010 onwards a proportion of waste heat as well as a proportion of waste energy from exhaust gases are be recovered and used to propel the car.
  • Hmmmm, it seems that turbochargers must not be filling the bill.
    
  • So this must mean that there needs to be some "radiator/condenser" type apparatus added into the design of the car for gathering the "waste heat" as well as some unknown device to recovery waste energy from the exhaust gases (maybe a fan with a rubber band attached?). Then a storage mechanism for the heat and the energy. And, finally, a method for propelling the car with this heat & energy.
  • I think that means either the car will have two (or more) different "engines" to propel it or that there will be some method to convert the stored heat and energy into a fuel for a single engine, the same engine which currently runs on racing fuel!!!
  • Is the FIA worried that there cannot be enough corn grown to provide the ethanol to power their cars? With "Global Warming" there'd be more growing seasons, not fewer!!!
    
• 2011 would see rules relating to high efficiency turbocharging and the introduction of fuel (energy) flow limits which would effectively reduce engine speeds so an engine downsize is proposed to keep the cars at 15000+ rpm.
  • OK, now we see where this is going. F1 cars with model airplane engines! They run on a thimble full of fuel and propel the 150 lb chassis and 50 lb driver around the track at speeds approaching 40 mph! What a terrific concept!!!

At your next opportunity, please be sure to let the FIA know how badly they've screwed up what was once a great series.

Oh, I forgot, that was their intent all along! Never mind. Just switch the channel .. maybe they still have horse races and dog races .. not a lot of technology there...

[DOF_power]

2011 proposals:


The FIA’s World Motor Sport Council met in Paris on Wednesday and among the items on the agenda was a report on the status of current discussions regarding the proposed Formula One technical regulations from 2011.

Among the key changes being talked about are a 50 percent reduction in downforce and the legalisation of moveable aerodynamic devices. The plans have a number of aims, including cutting costs, closer racing, improved environmental friendliness and making Formula One technology more relevant to road car development.

Proposals include:

Engine efficiency
To limit engine power by imposing a maximum energy flow rate. However, there will be few restrictions on the engine cycle, which can include turbo-charging and energy recovery. It is believed that this will lead to a gain of at least 20% in thermal efficiency.

Drag
To allow moving aerodynamic devices, which will reduce drag by over 50% and allow a 40% reduction in the power required to maintain current speeds.

Energy recovery
Energy will be recovered during braking and returned to both front and rear axles when accelerating. The amount of energy returned on each straight will be limited in order to prevent top speeds exceeding the safety criteria for the circuits.

Fuel
The total amount of fuel energy to be consumed during a race will be regulated, encouraging further overall efficiency. The CO2 emitted will be further reduced by the introduction of gasoline which is partly derived from sustainable, non-food bio sources but complies fully with pump fuel legislation.

Overtaking
Formula One cars currently find it very difficult to overtake because of the influence of the car in front. New aerodynamic rules will halve the downforce, and de-sensitise the car to the influence of the wake of the car ahead. It is also proposed to eliminate automatically the downforce deficit of the following car.

Regulations
The best estimates of what these measures will mean in terms of regulations are currently as follows:
• 1.3-1.5 litre, 4-cylinder engine;
• no RPM or boost limit;
• energy flow rate to generate 300kW, including energy recovery from the exhaust;
• 200kW brake energy recovery, front and rear axle;
• 400-600kJ energy return per straight;
• pump-legal bio-fuel;
• FIA specified and supplied undertray and possibly other aerodynamic components;
• 50% 2007 downforce;
• adjustable, regulated wings and cooling;
• automatic downforce adjustment when following another car;
• lap times and top speeds maintained at 2009 levels;
• over 50% reduction in fuel consumed.

Costs
A number of measures to constrain costs are proposed, including:
• standardisation of components;
• homologation of components and assemblies;
• material restrictions;
• extended life of assemblies;
• restrictions on personnel and work at races;
• restrictions on the use of certain facilities (eg wind tunnels).
All these measures will be developed into detailed regulations in close collaboration with the teams and manufacturers.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by FIA

Drag reduction will be encouraged both in the vehicle shape and the cooling assemblies, and extend to the adoption of adaptive devices.
The intent is a reduction in maximum drag of some 50% compared to today’s levels. This will demand significantly less overall power so as not to exceed today’s maximum speeds. Simulation demonstrates that an overall saving in fuel used of over 50% is achievable using a down-sized and cheaper-to-produce engine, yet the same overall speed, acceleration and lap
times can be retained.

Simulations are more wrong then they're right.
J.P. Montoya realised in an instant that moving the front wing up is bad both for overtaking and safety, the guys with the simulators needed 15 years to reach the same conclusions. Hill realised in an instant that the big slicks are need for overtaking, while the simulators in charge needed 12 years to reach the same conclusions.

to be continued...

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Not wanting to stifle the debate, let me say that scientific evidence is not, nor was it ever, a matter for "agreement" by a consortium of scientists, i.e., it's not something that's voted on. Either the theory is proven by the data or it isn't .. there is only one right answer and it can be proven time and again.

The Global Warming theory and the Big Bang Theory are great fodder for science fiction writers; but when put to true scientific rigors, they fail miserably because the basis for the theories are found lacking as well as certain facts used to support the theories contradict established physical laws within the universe.

As for Mr. Gore's film, just ask yourself why a Federal Judge in England (sorry, I don't have the proper title) has issued an edict that when Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is publicly presented that it must be preceded by a statement which says there are a minimum of 9 specific falsehoods presented as truths in the film and the 9 are listed? Now, it seems this Judge has certainly set himself up as a target and a laughingstock, provided anyone could prove any of the 9 "truths" to be true.


...

THANK YOU, Charles. I got into that one and THEN wondered, 'Hop the Hell do I get out of this?" Getting into a geo-political debate about a nut case (Gore) is a lost cause from the git-go.

Stifle away, Gridley. My input is officially and thankfully stifled.

BTW, I believe a "Federal Judge" in England might be termed a "Judge of the High Court." Not sure but I think I heard that term used in the example you mention, which also mandated that the "Award winning" film would not be shown in the schools there as scientific knowledge.

[Racer Duck]

it has always been that politics and science do not mix. and it always baffled me why the politician's word carries more weight with the general public than the scientist's.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

it has always been that politics and science do not mix. and it always baffled me why the politician's word carries more weight with the general public than the scientist's.

The answer cuts back to another active thread I've opined in recently. The media.

That answer is the same one to a question I have come to puzzle over; why is professional sports reported on the sports pagers and not the entertainment section of the newspaper? After all, aren't we reminded weekly that NASCAR, for excample, is all about entertainment and no longer so much about sports? Isn't the same actually true of all professional sports? Collectively they are merely diversions, temporarily taking our minds off our everyday problems?

So why in the sports section? Why not on the entertainment page along side the movie reviews, the stage productions and the rare article on the monster trucks and WWF?

Onquiring minds want to know.